[normhead]

I lost me first telephoto zoom to fungus after taking it on a canoe trip with out a humidity proof container. It was affecting the images, and it was so bad, I remember the store guy who told me what was going on calling all his buddies over to examine the colony. All my gear goes camping in Pelican cases now, or it doesn't go.

[Blue]

I lost me first telephoto zoom to fungus after taking it on a canoe trip with out a humidity proof container. It was affecting the images, and it was so bad, I remember the store guy who told me what was going on calling all his buddies over to examine the colony. All my gear goes camping in Pelican cases now, or it doesn't go.

I have one of those to in the event the canoe or boat turns over, it will float and is bright yellow.

[Alan Clogwyn]

I don't take it seriosuly at all. It's a great way to get a bargain lens, consequently most of my lenses have it!

[Blue]

I don't take it seriosuly at all. It's a great way to get a bargain lens, consequently most of my lenses have it!

Holga/lomography at its finest.

[vrrattko]

I did take it seriously when I purchased Zeiss 50 1.7. Fortunately it was cheap lens and the fungus was not overgrown, so i took it to the lens service and had it removed for something like 25 pounds. It was worth it.

[Aristophanes]

It helps to remind everyone that fungus does NOT grow on glass with humidity.

It requires an organic compound as well, and that comes in the form of dust. Not silica dust but the household form.

75% of preventing fungus is keeping the lens free of dust.

[Blue]

It helps to remind everyone that fungus does NOT grow on glass with humidity.

It requires an organic compound as well, and that comes in the form of dust. Not silica dust but the household form.

75% of preventing fungus is keeping the lens free of dust.

The spores get into the lens the same way the dust does. However, many microorganisms are specialists in where the get their carbon and it isn't necessarily in the form of dust. The can strip it from glues and coatings, and that is how they end up etching the surfaces if neglected. Fungi do not thrive in dry conditions so I would argue that 99% of prevention is keeping the dry and 1% is dust mitigation. Spores are ubiquitous but fewer are likely to occur in Death Valley than the Central Valley.

[Aristophanes]

The spores get into the lens the same way the dust does. However, many microorganisms are specialists in where the get their carbon and it isn't necessarily in the form of dust. The can strip it from glues and coatings, and that is how they end up etching the surfaces if neglected. Fungi do not thrive in dry conditions so I would argue that 99% of prevention is keeping the dry and 1% is dust mitigation. Spores are ubiquitous but fewer are likely to occur in Death Valley than the Central Valley.

My understanding is that all glass coatings and adhesives use inorganic, non-carbon materials now precisely to avoid tenacious spores. This is an issue not only about lenses but other types of industrials as well, like medical devices.

[rhodopsin]

The spores get into the lens the same way the dust does. However, many microorganisms are specialists in where the get their carbon and it isn't necessarily in the form of dust. The can strip it from glues and coatings, and that is how they end up etching the surfaces if neglected. Fungi do not thrive in dry conditions so I would argue that 99% of prevention is keeping the dry and 1% is dust mitigation. Spores are ubiquitous but fewer are likely to occur in Death Valley than the Central Valley.

+1 Fungi spores are EVERYWHERE. Then there is dust invisible to the naked eye.

Interesting, I think there may be more spores in Death Valley, tumbled own from the surrounding mountains, hibernating dessicated, waiting for moisture, sometimes for many years, great big piles of them.

[Just1MoreDave]

So, how seriously do you take fungus as a threat to your lenses?

As long as I know how to take the lens apart, I'm not worried.

The guy in the link lives on Maui. I lived on Kauai for 5 years and it was not kind to our "stuff". With the highest electric rates in the US, residences usually didn't have AC. For a livable interior, we had windows open constantly, and trade breezes blowing through the house. We weren't on the ocean, but only a mile away. The breeze had salt, humidity, and dirt in it. If something survived the air, there was UV or bugs or rust.

I now use the RioRico solution, living at 5500 ft. and typical humidity of a commercial airliner.

[Blue]

My understanding is that all glass coatings and adhesives use inorganic, non-carbon materials now precisely to avoid tenacious spores. This is an issue not only about lenses but other types of industrials as well, like medical devices.

The modern ones are. Canada Balsam isn't used anymore. However, the compounds still have carbon and there are microorganisms that can strip carbon from the inside of plastic containers with nothing but distilled water.

[rparmar]

Lenses are everywhere. Fungi are everywhere. Dust is everywhere. Photographs are everywhere.

We are everywhere.

[pacerr]

And as for the effect on images --

A few years ago I came across a Vivitar 400/5.6 tele at a bargaqin price. On arrival it showed fungus over about 35-percent of the lens in a crescent-shaped area at 10-15-percent coverage.

I immediately shot a representative number of scenes typical of using a long tele lens and headed for the shop bench where I thoroughly cleaned the affected element. Within 40 minutes (that isn't a difficult lens to work on!) I re-shot the same scenes in the same light.

There was NO OBSERVABLE difference in the in-focus area of the images. However, the out of focus areas (bokeh?) were slightly but noticeably affected showing a lose of contrast and color saturation and a very slight difference in the apparent sharpness.

Logic and experience tells me this is a typical optical effect on the images -- try it yourself with a slight smear of Vasoline on the front lens -- and it agrees with my experience with plain ol' dirty lenses.

I suspect one's tolerance for fungus depends on the cost/utility value of the lens and one's personal Ech! factor about fungus in general. I imagine there's been a LOT of paid-for and published photos taken with lenses with icky glass.

H2

[altopiet]

Sound a little extreme? I have a fairly good background in microbiology and a good rule of thumb is that if something is found growing in a very inhospitable location, it must be very well-adapted to living in that place and probably very hard to eradicate from same!

Steve, with your experience, what is your take on using UV c lamp to kill fungus in a lens?

[Blue]

Steve, with your experience, what is your take on using UV c lamp to kill fungus in a lens?

They are effective at killing microorganisms in all Kingdoms (Fungi, Monera, Viruses, etc.) if given enough time. The concern I would have with the lens is whether the UV light will get enough penetration into the interior of the lens because of the layers of glass and shadows from the metal interior of the lens. It would need to be in there several days getting turned once a day and flipped ever other day for it to get to everything. That said, it still may not make it to the interior groups/elements but would definitely work on the outer elements.

This method is used in scientific and medical surfaces to sterilize the surface tools such as scalpels, forceps etc.